Is the FCC Working Hand in Glove with the Republican Party?
In addition to familiarizing the public with various lab tests, chemicals, and other tricks of the crime scene trade, viewers also get a realistic computer reenactment of various violent crimes -- a kind of inside the body view of death. A recent show, for example, depicted a bullet rattling around a victim's skull, and then lodging in her ear, with accompanying sound effects.
Is this indecent programming?
Depending on the viewer's squeamish level, a reasonable argument could be made that these scenes are more indecent than either Janet Jackson's breast or remarks made by radio personality Howard Stern. Should Congress, the FCC, the Bush administration, and various pro-censorship advocate groups target CBS and its top-rated shows?
Since Jackson's ill-fated Super Bowl halftime "wardrobe malfunction" the nation jumped on the indecency bandwagon perhaps like no time in its history. Suddenly, laws that have been in place for years are being revamped and fines increased geometrically. In the first three months of 2004, the FCC levied indecency fines totaling more than $1 million, according to the Center for Public Integrity. This amount exceeds the previous nine years combined.
Fines are not only becoming more frequent, they are getting costlier. Rather than hand out one fine, regulators are penalizing each utterance it deems illegal. A recent published report in trade magazine Broadcasting & Cable reveals that the FCC is going to fine Infinity Broadcasting more than $100,000 for a Stern broadcast. This round of fines will add to the nearly $2 million already paid by Infinity over Stern's show since 1995.
Adding to the upheaval, the House of Representatives voted 391-22 in favor of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act (H.R. 3717), which increases the maximum fine the FCC can hand out from $27,500 to $500,000. More importantly, the new legislation enables the regulatory body to fine entertainers directly, not just the companies they work for, as current guidelines stipulate. The Senate has yet to vote on the bill.
It is not much of a stretch to see the political motivations behind this movement. In general terms, the kind of people who support restrictions against indecent programming are voters George W. Bush is seeking, while those who don't want to limit free speech are usually in Democratic challenger John Kerry's camp. From a bigger picture perspective, though, these changes lead us down a slippery path.
The issue at hand is attempting to adequately define indecency, profanity, obscenity, and other terms used to label art and expression. The FCC's indecency, for example, hinges primarily on sex, decrying "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities." My copy of Webster's Dictionary defines "indecent" in a broader sense, "improper, morally offensive, obscene."
The problem is that the FCC has developed its own universal definitions for these terms, but they fly in opposition to the idea of free speech, which is a defining American trait. People simply do not want a governing body -- or anyone really -- telling them what they can or cannot watch, listen to, or read.
Established by the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC regulates interstate and international radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable communications. However, during the Great Depression it had a simpler charter -- ensure that radio, the day's latest technological innovation, served the public by broadcasting valuable governmental information, like weather reports and educational programming.
The scope of the FCC seemed clear, but a clause in its charter related to the notion of "public interest" gave the regulatory body almost unlimited power. In exercising this power, the FCC concentrated on fraud and enforcing standards of decency. This far-reaching power was backed by a federal appeals court in 1975, which declared, "Congress has made the FCC the guardian of that public interest."
Despite the government's decision, social norms changed and performers such as comedian George Carlin fought back. His indecency case went before the Supreme Court in 1978. The Supreme Court ruled against Carlin, effectively banning the seven swear words from being broadcast during hours children could hear them.
The challenge in today's battle is that supposedly non-political enforcement of FCC regulations sniffs of a political agenda. FCC Chairman Michael Powell is particularly suspect, considering that he is the son of Secretary of State Colin Powell. The bipartisan commission appears to be waging a political witch hunt, which has both sides of the dispute in an uproar. Critics contend that a bit of pandering to conservatives -- particularly in the name of saving children from indecency -- helps the current administration in its reelection efforts.
As soon as the reports surfaced about possible fines against Stern, he told his audience that the battle was political, since he had recently started publicly criticizing Bush. In a tight election vote, the radio personality's approximately 8 million listeners could have consequences if properly mobilized.
Ironically, for all the bluster coming from the FCC, the regulatory body really has very little power over what people view. Its jurisdiction is limited to broadcast television stations and radio. Yes, the FCC may succeed in removing Stern from the airwaves, but can do little or nothing about cable television, satellite radio, the Internet, and other forms of media outside its boundaries.
So, where does Jackson's breast fit in this mess?
Like the leuko crystal violet Grissom and Caine use to detect trace amounts of blood at a CSI crime scene, Jackson's ridiculous plea for attention serves as an accelerant giving today's puritanical crusaders reason to go after people and ideas they don't like. Think of that when you see her latest CD on the shelf or when you walk into the election booth in November.